Delicate question - church volunteers

[shinyhappypeople]

(Disclaimer: I'm not actively looking to volunteer anywhere, I just saw this on an application and was totally taken aback.)

 

Do you think it's appropriate to ask about a potential church volunteer's history of being sexually abused? I saw this on an application and felt a little sick. This is a similar application (see p. 3 for the questions), but on the application I saw the question wasn't optional. It was a "fill it out or don't volunteer at all" type of situation.

 

This is, presumably, for a volunteer position working with kids. I get what they're implying: if someone was abused they're higher risk for becoming abusers, but it just *feels wrong* in my gut to force someone to share that kind of intimate information - especially because of the very real potential that their victimization may be used against them.

 

So WWYD? Would you fill it out?

[QueenCat]

We do a background check but that is not asked. Only asked if you have ever been accused or convicted. If accused but not convicted, you have to explain (and it's possible to be approved as people do get falsely accused).

[Carol in Cal.]

If I saw a question like that, I would leave, on principle, and not volunteer. I actually did that once. I was going to work as a congregational advocate for a community pregnancy center, and the questionnaire that they sent out was like a final exam. It was so personally invasive and long, with essay questions (at least 6 of them) that I called them and told them that I would not be filling that position after all. We discussed it, and I was really nice about it but pretty firm. I hope that if enough people do that that someone will stop and think about what is and isn't reasonable in terms of invasion of privacy.

[newlifemom]

I had questions like that on a job app that would have me working with kids. IDK, I think it depends on a lot of circumstances, but I would want to know if someone had been habitually sexually abused as a child before I left them alone with my kids. Of course, I would probably want to know a lot of other things as well. That way I could, hopefully, ascertain their character prior to leaving them alone with my kids.

[shinyhappypeople]

If I saw a question like that, I would leave, on principle, and not volunteer. I actually did that once. I was going to work as a congregational advocate for a community pregnancy center, and the questionnaire that they sent out was like a final exam. It was so personally invasive and long, with essay questions (at least 6 of them) that I called them and told them that I would not be filling that position after all. We discussed it, and I was really nice about it but pretty firm. I hope that if enough people do that that someone will stop and think about what is and isn't reasonable in terms of invasion of privacy.

 

That's my feeling. I mean, I *do* understand what they're trying to do. They want to protect children of their congregation and I totally respect their goals. But... dang. On the application they stopped just short of asking for the applicant's fifth grade report card.

[Stacie Leigh]

At our church we have to have state clearances in order to work with children in any capacity and I believe they do delve into that.

 

 

**Editing due to my failure to fact check before posting... My apologies. Lesson learned.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Stacie Leigh

[Mom0012]

I wouldn't answer the question and would be offended that it was asked. I think a background check is sufficient and reasonable.

 

Lisa

[Cindyg]

I think the question on a form is inappropriate. I fully support (and expect) the background check.

[Joanne]

Invasive, not appropriate, and not particularly helpful.

 

It could also be a "trigger" for victims.

[simka2]

Coming from someone who has run many brackgound checks, consulted with lawyers, instituted many precautions from "Reducing the Risk", I find that highly inappropriate.

 

I would leave the church. To me it is a huge red flag. What are they going to do, discriminate against you if you have been a victim? No. :glare:

 

ps, workers should never be alone with children so the question to me is completely without justification!

[Ferdie]

I wouldn't answer the question and would be offended that it was asked. I think a background check is sufficient and reasonable.

 

Lisa

 

:iagree:

[Stacie Leigh]

Lest I come across as incredibly insensitive, I would have the check the "yes" for that question myself. It is humiliating, but what happened to me is not the institution's fault and they are trying to ensure that it never is their fault in anyone's case. There are also, in some cases, insurance issues involved as well and medical/phsychiatric treatment can be denied to victims if the caretakers are not screened according to insurance co. protocol.

[FaithManor]

Not appropriate at all.

 

Additionally, who is keeping this very personal information safe? Seriously, at every church we've ever attended there was ZERO security on their file cabinets and the computer passwords were kept and labeled as to what part of the computer, programs, etc. those passwords got a person into all within the top drawer of the front desk. This was apparently convenient so ANYBODY could fill in for the office administrator, but honest to pete...all of this employment and volunteer information should not be a public free-for-all. Can you imagine the fall-out if a gossipy person found out and started spreading the "news". :eek: (When dh became the church treasurer, everyone was quite shocked to see the security changes made in the office!)

 

I just don't see anything good that could come from it, but I sure could see plenty of the bad! :001_huh:

 

Faith

[BarbecueMom]

I would refuse to answer that. And as someone who was abused as a child BY a child who was younger than me, I'd wonder if they'd be willing to screen the Sunday School kids themselves to weed out potential predators. Probably not.

[bairnmama]

 

ps, workers should never be alone with children so the question to me is completely without justification!

 

 

I understand this is a great goal to have... but sometimes it is physically impossible. I am in charge of my church's paid nursery workers. We have very few that are even willing to do this job even when it is paid that I often can only get 2 workers per room. Our church building is set up so that the only bathroom in the children's wing is down the hall and not connected to ANY room. We can't take all the children down to the bathroom when only 1 or 2 need to go, so one worker takes those that need to go potty, and the other stays in the room with the other children.

 

I don't like the situation, but that's the reality that we have to deal with.

[DesertDweller]

I think it's highly inappropriate. I wouldn't answer it, so definitely wouldn't be volunteering.

 

It does make me think they've had a situation or someone on the staff has had something happen that would make them feel this type of question is necessary.

 

I have no problem with background checks and have been at churches that require one. That seems like more than enough to me.

[QuirkyKapers]

I think it's highly inappropriate. I wouldn't answer it, so definitely wouldn't be volunteering.

 

It does make me think they've had a situation or someone on the staff has had something happen that would make them feel this type of question is necessary.

 

I have no problem with background checks and have been at churches that require one. That seems like more than enough to me.

 

 

:iagree:I have seen this asked on forms before and although I understand the why behind it, more likely to abuse, I still don't think it is appropriate.

I decided to be involved because of it.

[myfunnybunch]

While I get what you're trying to say here, the implication is that being a victim as a child plays a role in one's adult character. I don't like that leap at all.

 

This.

 

It is inappropriate.

 

An applicant intending to victimize children is not likely to answer this question truthfully anyway, and there is absolutely no way to determine whether an applicant's answer is truthful or not.

 

And it is just as--perhaps more-- likely that a former victim will go above and beyond to protect children from abuse than it is that he or she will go on to victimize young children.

 

If this was a position in which I was genuinely interested, I'd leave the question blank, let them know that I found the question intrusive and inappropriate for many reasons (including confidentiality) and am therefore unwilling to answer, and give them the choice to continue with the application process or not.

 

Knowing individual abuse histories will not protect children. Stringent protection policies will.

 

Cat

[MelAR05]

Inappropriate? Yes. Common? Unfortunately yes. A dear friend of mine, who had been leading and involved with youth for more than 15 years at the same church, was forced to answer this question when they installed new policies about children's volunteers. She was afraid they would make her step down if she answered truthfully. I hate the way that question made her feel - as if she had done something wrong! Everything worked out fine and she is still at the same church but I don't like how it made her feel.

 

Of course, most churches are actually a business so they are just trying to protect the business. And yes, I do believe it is more about protecting the business than the children. I will step off my soapbox now. :)

[simka2]

I understand this is a great goal to have... but sometimes it is physically impossible. I am in charge of my church's paid nursery workers. We have very few that are even willing to do this job even when it is paid that I often can only get 2 workers per room. Our church building is set up so that the only bathroom in the children's wing is down the hall and not connected to ANY room. We can't take all the children down to the bathroom when only 1 or 2 need to go, so one worker takes those that need to go potty, and the other stays in the room with the other children.

 

I don't like the situation, but that's the reality that we have to deal with.

 

When I was in this situation...and I have probably 100s of times, I would not open the nursery until I had the minimum # of volunteers needed. Our Sr. Pastor knew this was the standard and was in full support. Honestly, if this was not the setup I wouldn't risk being involved. The personal liability is to great.

 

It helps that I am now in a denomination that doesn't do Nursery or Preschool ;)

[Audrey]

I think that smacks of blaming the victim. Being abused does not in any way mean that you will be an abuser. Even suggesting that is so very hideously insulting to every innocent victim out there.

[Quad Shot Academy]

Does anyone have studies showing that victims are more likely to abuse as adults?? :bigear: The only thing I have ever heard is that children are more likely to act out on other children and there was a flawed study about pedophiles, that was later shown that the men were making up fantasies about themselves being abused. Most admitted to lying later.

 

A church we went to had those questions, if you answered yes, you had to have an interview with a pastor who would write down details of the abuse on your application. The applications were kept in an unlocked file cabinet that many people had access to. Every leader would go through the applications to see who was approved for what. To make matters worse, serving was required. Male leaders would hound women telling them they had to serve. :glare:

[Harriet Vane]

The question is inappropriate, in my opinion, and serves only to create a witch hunt atmosphere.

 

There are no reliable statistics to show that former victims are more likely to be abusers. To do that, someone would have to first determine who the population of former victims are, and then determine what percentage of those people went on to abuse others. No one has done such research.

[Harriet Vane]

 

I balk at the question myself, but statistically, people with a history of abuse are the most likely to abuse themselves. .

 

This is not the case at all. That particular statistic is unavailable, as no one has studied it. Current statistics are based on survey of only abusers. No one knows how many non-abusers are former victims. I suspect it's a far larger number.

[twoforjoy]

While I get what you're trying to say here, the implication is that being a victim as a child plays a role in one's adult character. I don't like that leap at all.

 

Not to mention that something like 1 in 3 women are sexually abused in some way before they reach the age of 18. When you are dealing with a group that large, I don't think it's really safe to draw conclusions that any particular woman in that group will pose more of a risk than any other.

 

I think it's a highly inappropriate question. I would refuse to answer on principle.

[Tess in the Burbs]

we I taught sunday school i had to do a background check and then attend a child abuse class with a video to watch. dh also since he sat in the room with me.

 

current place: so far nothing and I am volunteering for VBS...

[shinyhappypeople]

A church we went to had those questions, if you answered yes, you had to have an interview with a pastor who would write down details of the abuse on your application. The applications were kept in an unlocked file cabinet that many people had access to. Every leader would go through the applications to see who was approved for what. To make matters worse, serving was required. Male leaders would hound women telling them they had to serve. :glare:

 

I'm stunned. That is AWFUL! Demanding and then writing down the details, thus making it permanent and available to others... oh my gosh. There is NO excuse for that.

 

I read somewhere (yeah, I know, the most credible reports always start that way ;)) that most child abusers are married men. So, should we just restrict asking this question to married men?

 

(I'm kidding. I don't think the question should be asked at all.)

[Quad Shot Academy]

This is not the case at all. That particular statistic is unavailable, as no one has studied it. Current statistics are based on survey of only abusers. No one knows how many non-abusers are former victims. I suspect it's a far larger number.

 

I didn't think so. I think it is a horrid urban myth that people generally accept as true. The first time I met a woman that worked for that church she told me, "We would never want someone that has ever been sexually abused around our children." I wonder how many friend she has. :001_huh:

 

Sadly, from what friends tell me, abuse victims are generally not allowed to adopt or be police officers either. :glare:

[Daisy]

Once churches started the background checks this became a routine question on volunteer forms. I've been asked it every time I've volunteered at a church or church camp. And I've had to have the personal interviews with the staff because of it also.

 

Yes, it is very emotionally trying. The stress is unbelievable. Worried they are going to think terrible things about you or what to know the details. Worry about whether they are going to start treating you like you have a disease. Worry that every time they look at you, they think about THAT.

 

Why not just slap the big scarlet A on us and be done with it.

 

I hate it.

[Mommy22alyns]

I wouldn't answer the question and would be offended that it was asked. I think a background check is sufficient and reasonable.

 

Lisa

 

 

:iagree:

[Julie Smith]

Sadly, from what friends tell me, abuse victims are generally not allowed to adopt or be police officers either. :glare:

 

I heard that to. I don't know if it's true. But it is one reason I didn't tell when I became a adult. I wanted to work with children.

[A.D.]

This is not the case at all. That particular statistic is unavailable, as no one has studied it. Current statistics are based on survey of only abusers. No one knows how many non-abusers are former victims. I suspect it's a far larger number.

 

100% correct. In addition, I wouldn't expect abusers to always be truthful after the fact.

[shinyhappypeople]

 

Sadly, from what friends tell me, abuse victims are generally not allowed to adopt or be police officers either. :glare:

 

Not true. I'd never heard this particular urban legend before.

[shinyhappypeople]

Once churches started the background checks this became a routine question on volunteer forms. I've been asked it every time I've volunteered at a church or church camp. And I've had to have the personal interviews with the staff because of it also.

 

Yes, it is very emotionally trying. The stress is unbelievable. Worried they are going to think terrible things about you or what to know the details. Worry about whether they are going to start treating you like you have a disease. Worry that every time they look at you, they think about THAT.

 

Why not just slap the big scarlet A on us and be done with it.

 

I hate it.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

[Stacie Leigh]

This is not the case at all. That particular statistic is unavailable, as no one has studied it. Current statistics are based on survey of only abusers. No one knows how many non-abusers are former victims. I suspect it's a far larger number.

 

Hm... I got that info from my DH. Maybe he was just trying to make me feel better about the application? In any case, I should have fact checked before posting for sure! My apologies.

[ScoutTN]

We do a background check but that is not asked. Only asked if you have ever been accused or convicted. If accused but not convicted, you have to explain (and it's possible to be approved as people do get falsely accused).

 

 

This is what our church has too. Both the form and the background check are required to volunteer with children or youth.

[Stacie Leigh]

I didn't think so. I think it is a horrid urban myth that people generally accept as true. The first time I met a woman that worked for that church she told me, "We would never want someone that has ever been sexually abused around our children." I wonder how many friend she has. :001_huh:

 

Sadly, from what friends tell me, abuse victims are generally not allowed to adopt or be police officers either. :glare:

 

That is awful... truly. THAT is what I have an issue with. A question on an application, I can cope with and maybe at some point it will become archaic to ask which I wouldn't mind. But out and out discrimination is entirely another matter and is very sad, imo.

 

In our situation, we are in a fairly urban area with lots of car and foot traffic around the building so there are serious locks, security cameras and keypads for entry. Doors are unlocked for services of course, but during the week only staff can get in with the code without ringing the bell.

 

Filing cabinets are key locked and the keys are locked up with another key. The pastor himself doesn't even have the keys as it could be seen as a conflict of interest. The secretary and administrator have keys. Office volunteers and staff are not permitted to view any files unless they pertain directly to their area of ministry, although even the nursery administrator isn't privy to the applications. One of the church elders views the applications.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Stacie Leigh

[bairnmama]

When I was in this situation...and I have probably 100s of times, I would not open the nursery until I had the minimum # of volunteers needed. Our Sr. Pastor knew this was the standard and was in full support. Honestly, if this was not the setup I wouldn't risk being involved. The personal liability is to great.

 

It helps that I am now in a denomination that doesn't do Nursery or Preschool ;)

 

 

Sadly, if my church did this, there would not be any children's programs at all... no Sunday School, no Wed night Bible studies, no choirs, nothing. We often have 12 to 20 kids from ages 3-6 show up for the Bible/Missions program and preschool choir (on different nights) and never more than 2 people "available" to volunteer. Same issue with the elementary ages. Everyone wants to drop their children off so they can enjoy/concentrate on their own service/study and will.not.volunteer or apply to be a paid worker.

 

We ask and ask and ask, but no one else steps up. Also, the church leadership are concerned that people will stop coming and bringing their kids if we refuse to keep taking them even when understaffed. They would rather we have the problem of too many kids if it means that more people are hearing God's word.

[Harriet Vane]

Hm... I got that info from my DH. Maybe he was just trying to make me feel better about the application? In any case, I should have fact checked before posting for sure! My apologies.

 

People come to this conclusion because so many abusers were themselves abused. However, I'll just restate for clarity:

 

Current statistics are based on surveys of only a portion of the victimized population. Current statistics are based on surveys of only abusers. There have not been studies that first determine who the entire population of victims are, and then from there, what percentage of that population then become abusive. Therefore no one knows--there are no statistics available--to say how large is the population of non-abusive former victims.

[2cents]

That is an inappropriate question and I would NOT be filling that portion of the application. Personally, it sends up red flags and I would not have anything to do with a place that would need that info. I would also have a problem with them having that kind of info on people because, exactly how confidential is it really. I have a feeling there are LOTS of eyes on those apps and things get around. It is an invasion. Run...fast!

[Night Elf]

I loved my time volunteering as a Sunday School teacher, VBS leader, children's choir assistant, and Awanas leader. I had no problem with a background check. I would rather not leave my children with people who didn't have a background check. However, if I was asked to fill out a form that asked questions like that, I would have told them no. It's just not the kind of information I think people should be forced to share, even in a religious environment where everyone is supposed to love his/her brother/sister and not judge. It only takes one person whispering to another person to begin the chain. I just wouldn't risk it, no matter how much I love to work with children.

[LidiyaDawn]

I've never seen that kind of invasive question on any background check things before… really though, what do they think it's going to get them? I bet a lot of people who'd had that experience as a kid are just gonna answer with "no" anyway, so they don't have to answer questions or have a bunch of people knowing their business.

[StephanieZ]

I think it absolutely unacceptable to ask anyone about their history of being a victim of abuse or crime.

 

Absolutely wrong.

 

I would never complete such a form, and I would object strenuously, and I'd consider leaving the organization altogether.

 

As someone who was (blessedly) NOT victimized as a child/youth, I'd see it as my duty to holler loudly at such a process as it labels/defames/targets VICTIMS. Absolutely wrong.

 

I know a nice handful of folks who were victimized as children, and every one of them is an upstanding, amazing human being who I'd trust with my own kids and anyone else's. To imagine any of them being expected to answer such a query on a form makes my blood boil. These are private stories that might not be discussed but a handful of times in someone's lifetime. . . These are not fodder for someone's blessed forms!

 

I'd also wonder at the potential for further victimizing vulnerable persons if they are identified in such a way. How is that information protected? We all know that perpertrators/abusers lurk in MANY churches! We also know that abusers often choose those who have a history of abuse as victims! To just collect and colate this data! OMG!

 

I believe strenuously that such a question/answer should only ever be asked in a protected and fundamentally safe relationship such as one between doctor/therapist and patient, NOT in a form, not in a church relationship, etc. Further, such a question should never be asked unless the asker is fully prepared to handle the fallout. A therapist can ask b/c s/he can/will be there to counsel. . . A doctor can ask b/c s/he might need to know to help the patient. . .A spouse can answer b/c they'll be there to hold you until you stop shaking. . . A best friend can maybe even ask . . .

 

And in ALL of these cases, the question is asked to HELP THE VICTIM/FRIEND/PATIENT, not to identify her/him so as to screen her/him as an ABUSER! That is just WRONG!

 

But, to ask such a thing on a form! For such an ill purpose! Not to help the victim, but to label him/her as high risk for abusing! So wrong!

 

How would you feel, if you'd been victimized, admitted it on a FORM, and then either never heard word one about it again (IGNORED!), or been rejected for the position (PUNISHED). . . Good lord, what a horrible thing!

 

It is wrong, wrong, wrong!

[shinyhappypeople]

I think it absolutely unacceptable to ask anyone about their history of being a victim of abuse or crime.

 

Absolutely wrong.

 

I would never complete such a form, and I would object strenuously, and I'd consider leaving the organization altogether.

 

As someone who was (blessedly) NOT victimized as a child/youth, I'd see it as my duty to holler loudly at such a process as it labels/defames/targets VICTIMS. Absolutely wrong.

 

I know a nice handful of folks who were victimized as children, and every one of them is an upstanding, amazing human being who I'd trust with my own kids and anyone else's. To imagine any of them being expected to answer such a query on a form makes my blood boil. These are private stories that might not be discussed but a handful of times in someone's lifetime. . . These are not fodder for someone's blessed forms!

 

I'd also wonder at the potential for further victimizing vulnerable persons if they are identified in such a way. How is that information protected? We all know that perpertrators/abusers lurk in MANY churches! We also know that abusers often choose those who have a history of abuse as victims! To just collect and colate this data! OMG!

 

I believe strenuously that such a question/answer should only ever be asked in a protected and fundamentally safe relationship such as one between doctor/therapist and patient, NOT in a form, not in a church relationship, etc. Further, such a question should never be asked unless the asker is fully prepared to handle the fallout. A therapist can ask b/c s/he can/will be there to counsel. . . A doctor can ask b/c s/he might need to know to help the patient. . .A spouse can answer b/c they'll be there to hold you until you stop shaking. . . A best friend can maybe even ask . . .

 

And in ALL of these cases, the question is asked to HELP THE VICTIM/FRIEND/PATIENT, not to identify her/him so as to screen her/him as an ABUSER! That is just WRONG!

 

But, to ask such a thing on a form! For such an ill purpose! Not to help the victim, but to label him/her as high risk for abusing! So wrong!

 

How would you feel, if you'd been victimized, admitted it on a FORM, and then either never heard word one about it again (IGNORED!), or been rejected for the position (PUNISHED). . . Good lord, what a horrible thing!

 

It is wrong, wrong, wrong!

 

I seriously almost started crying when I read this (good tears). Thank you, thank you, thank you from the bottom of my heart for understanding. :grouphug: